Darwin's Theory Of Evolution: Faith Vs. Reason

Creation versus evolution; faith versus reason. There has been an ongoing debate ever since on how man first existed. As people have been trying to unlock the mystery of life, many evolution theories sprang up – one of which is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s theory made a big impact in science and has only gained more acceptance as years went by. It was widely accepted as the explanation for the diversity of organisms, and there were proofs claimed to support it. But today, we will look into it differently. Good day, everyone! I am Razel Clarete, and I am going to present the major loopholes in Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, proposing his theory of evolution by means
of natural selection. He defined evolution as “descent with modification from a common ancestor”. In this context, modification means “alterations in the genetic make-up of an organism,” and descent is “going down from one generation to the following generations.” Natural selection is the mechanism “by which organisms evolve over long periods of time to survive and to produce offspring”. For example, the Cetiosaurus dinosaur during the Triassic period which has a long neck that extends vertically to eat from treetops. Evolutionists claim that due to natural selection, Cetiosaurus evolved its long neck as an advantage so it could reach food. Darwin also believed that as generations pass, a random genetic mutation occurs within organisms, causing the following generations to be more complex than the previous ones. In the book he published in 1871, The Descent of Man, he proposed that man evolved from apes. I refuse this – not just the presumption that man evolved from apes – but the Darwinian Theory as a whole.
The primary evidence of the theory is the fossil record. It gives us a clear picture of the distant past. The fossil record may seem like a solid proof of evolution, but in reality, it fails to support the theory. The fossil record is a mere record of what may have existed. By examining a fossil, of a reptile, for instance, we could state that this organism once existed, but do we see any trace of evolution there? No, there is none; unless they have discovered any transitional fossils – half-reptile, half-bird, for example. Well, evolutionists cannot point to any. More importantly, there were no transitional fossils that show the evolution of apes to humans. If species are continually changing, why were there several of the same certain creatures, but none of them appear to be in the transition phase? According to Neville George, a professor of Paleontology at Glasgow University, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
A mechanism for genetic variation and a necessary part of evolution is a mutation.
Mutation is a change that occurs in the DNA which can happen when there is a failure while the DNA is replicating or repairing itself, or when there is an exposure to radiation or other harmful chemicals. Mutations are random. A random change in a complex organism can only be either harmful or ineffectual, which implies that it cannot lead to transformation – to evolutionary development. During mutation, the genetic information is either being rearranged or destroyed; it does not add any information to the DNA, making it impossible to create a new organ or even new species. One mutation disaster was the 1986 Chernobyl tragedy in Ukraine. This happened when a reactor in the Chernobyl Power Plant exploded, which led to the suffering of animals and humans, not just in their generation but also to those that followed. In fact, the number of babies born with defects increased to 200%. Animal offsprings were also born with various defects due to mutation. How can such harmful mechanism result in a good one --- evolution, for
example?
Another issue that the Evolution Theory could not answer is the irreducibly complex structures of organisms.
“Irreducibly complex structures” means structures that “could not have possibly evolved from lesser structures.” This term was coined by Michael Behe, an American biochemist and the author of Darwin's Black Box. Systems of irreducible complexity are biological systems that cannot evolve through modifications or mutation. If random mutation could ever be able to generate the required genetic information to produce such complex systems, multiple immediate mutations would be needed. But this is the flaw. As explained by Behe, “If more than one [mutation] is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.” The best example is the eye. An eye could not have been formed from a much lesser complex structure because every tiny part is necessary for it to function. Supposing that organisms once had no sight, and because of the mechanism called natural selection, in order for the organisms to survive, they developed eyes. But which could have evolved first? Sclera?? Iris? If we follow that the organisms have to develop something to be advantageous in the wild, then eyes should be formed perfectly with its parts intact, all at once. But in reality, the probability of a genetic mutation generating each of these parts at the same time within an organism is
zero.
About the Cetiosaurus dinosaur as mentioned earlier, evolutionists claim that its long neck was the product of natural selection. However, in an assembly in a museum in Utah, it was discovered that its neck vertebrae are vertical. It could not lift its neck higher. Cetiosaurus is, in fact, an undergrowth eater, which is a disadvantage. If natural selection really occurred, why would Cetiosaurus develop such structure that was not an advantage for survival? It proves that Cetiosaurus did not evolve at all. It was as it was. The evolution theory has many flaws; these are just the major ones. In the end, the theory still fails to explain the complexity we see today. Life still remains a mystery; even science could not explain it flawlessly. To end, I would like to share a quote from John Lennox, a Northern Irish mathematician and a philosopher of science. “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists.”